Professional Responsibility — suspension

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility — suspension

Where attorney Mark Milos received a 90-day suspension in Illinois, reciprocal discipline is appropriate.

“After reviewing the matter, we impose the identical 90-day suspension imposed by the Illinois Supreme Court. See SCR 22.22. On November 15, 2011, OLR filed a complaint and order to answer. On November 23, 2011, this court ordered Attorney Milos to inform the court, in writing, of any claim, predicated upon the grounds set forth in SCR 22.22(3), that the imposition of discipline identical to that imposed in Illinois would be unwarranted and of the factual basis for any such claim. The order stated that if Attorney Milos failed to respond by December 13, 2011, the court would proceed under SCR 22.22. The order was sent via certified mail; the signed certified mail receipt was returned to the court. Attorney Milos filed no answer to the complaint and did not respond to this court’s November 23, 2011, order.”

“On December 27, 2011, the parties filed with this court a stipulation signed by Attorney Milos in which he agreed with the facts alleged in the complaint and the documents attached to the complaint, and he agreed that he is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22. Through the stipulation, Attorney Milos does not claim defenses to the proposed imposition of reciprocal discipline, nor does he contest the imposition of discipline in Wisconsin.”

2011AP2625-D OLR v. Milos

Per curiam.

Attorneys: For Complainant: Hendrix, Jonathan E., Madison; For Respondent: Cayo, Richard J., Milwaukee; Milos, Mark, Kenosha